Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020 · 2019-10-16 · Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020 Congressional...

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020

October 16, 2019

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R45965


SUMMARY

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020 Funds for the judicial branch are included annually in the Financial Services and General

Government (FSGG) appropriations bill. The bill provides funding for the U.S. Supreme Court;

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; the U.S. Court of International Trade; U.S.

courts of appeals and district courts; the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; the Federal

Judicial Center; the U.S. Sentencing Commission; federal defender organizations that provide

legal representation to defendants financially unable to retain counsel in federal criminal

proceedings; security and protective services for courthouses, judicial officers, and judicial

employees; and fees and allowances paid to jurors.

The judiciary’s FY2020 budget request of $8.29 billion was submitted to Congress on March 11, 2019. By law, the President

includes, without change, the appropriations request submitted by the judiciary in the annual budget submission to Congress.

The FY2020 budget request included $7.62 billion in discretionary funds, representing a 5.1% increase over the FY2019

enacted level of $7.25 billion provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6; February 15, 2019).

The FY2020 budget request also included $669.8 million in mandatory funds to pay the salaries and benefits of certain types

of federal judges and to also provide for judicial retirement accounts.

The House Appropriations Committee held a markup (H.R. 3351) on June 11, 2019, and recommended the judiciary receive

a total of $7.51 billion in discretionary funds. The House passed H.R. 3351 on June 26, 2019. The Senate Appropriations

Committee held a markup (S. 2524) on September 19, 2019, and recommended the judiciary receive a total of $7.42 billion in

discretionary funds.

The FSGG appropriations bill was not enacted prior to the beginning of FY2020 on October 1, 2019. At present, the judiciary

is funded through November 21, 2019, by the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-59; September 27, 2019).

In recent years, appropriations for the judiciary have comprised approximately 0.2% of total budget authority.

This report will be updated as events warrant.

R45965

October 16, 2019

Barry J. McMillion Analyst in American National Government



Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

FY2020 Consideration: Overview of Actions ................................................................................. 1

Submission of FY2020 Budget Request on March 11, 2019 .................................................... 2 Subcommittee Hearings on the Supreme Court’s FY2020 Budget Request ............................. 2 House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

Markup ................................................................................................................................... 3 House Appropriations Committee Markup ............................................................................... 4 Passage by the House ................................................................................................................ 4 Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

Markup ................................................................................................................................... 4 Senate Appropriations Committee Markup ............................................................................... 5 Enactment of Continuing Appropriations Resolution ............................................................... 5

FY2020 Judiciary Budget Request .................................................................................................. 5

Discretionary Appropriations .................................................................................................... 5 Discretionary Appropriations in Recent Years .................................................................... 8 Use of Non-Appropriated Funds ......................................................................................... 8

Mandatory Appropriations ........................................................................................................ 8 Administrative Provisions ......................................................................................................... 9

What Is Funded by the Judiciary Budget? ..................................................................................... 10

U.S. Supreme Court ................................................................................................................ 10 U.S. Courts of Appeals ............................................................................................................ 10 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit .......................................................................... 11 U.S. Court of International Trade ............................................................................................. 11 U.S. District Courts (Including Territorial Courts) .................................................................. 11

U.S. Magistrate Judges ..................................................................................................... 12 U.S. Bankruptcy Courts .......................................................................................................... 13 U.S. Court of Federal Claims .................................................................................................. 14 Probation and Pretrial Services ............................................................................................... 14 Defender Services ................................................................................................................... 15 Court Security ......................................................................................................................... 16 Fees of Jurors and Commissioners .......................................................................................... 16 Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund ............................................................................... 17 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts ................................................................................ 18 Federal Judicial Center ............................................................................................................ 18 United States Sentencing Commission ................................................................................... 18

Selected Courts Not Funded by the Judiciary Budget ................................................................... 19

Ongoing Policy Issues for FY2020 ............................................................................................... 19

Number of U.S. District and Circuit Court Judgeships ........................................................... 19 Judicial Security ...................................................................................................................... 20 Cost Containment by the Judiciary ......................................................................................... 21

Tables

Table 1. Status of Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020...................................................................... 1

Table 2. Judiciary Discretionary Appropriations, FY2019-FY2020 ............................................... 6



Table 3. Judiciary Mandatory Funding, FY2019-FY2020 .............................................................. 9

Contacts

Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 22


Congressional Research Service 1

Introduction This report provides an overview of the judiciary’s FY2020 budget request, as well as

information about Congress’s consideration of the judiciary’s request. The first section of this

report includes subsections covering each major action involving the judiciary’s FY2020 budget

request, including

the initial submission by the President of the judiciary’s request on March 11,

2019;

a hearing held on March 7, 2019, by the House Financial Services and General

Government Appropriations Subcommittee on the budget request for the U.S.

Supreme Court;

the House subcommittee markup on June 3, 2019;

the House Appropriations Committee markup on June 11, 2019;

passage by the House on June 26, 2019;

the Senate subcommittee markup on September 17, 2019;

the Senate Appropriations Committee markup on September 19, 2019; and

enactment of a continuing resolution on September 27, 2019.

The second section of the report provides information about the specific discretionary

appropriations requested by the judiciary for FY2020, as well as information about the mandatory

appropriations and administrative provisions included in the appropriations process. The third

section provides information about the various courts, judicial entities, and judicial services that

are covered by appropriations for the judiciary. The report also identifies some of the courts and

judicial services that are not covered by such appropriations (but are covered by other

appropriations bills). Finally, the report provides information about ongoing policy issues

affecting the judiciary that may be of interest to Congress during FY2020.

FY2020 Consideration: Overview of Actions This section provides an overview of the major actions involving congressional consideration of

FY2020 judiciary appropriations. The current status of FY2020 judiciary appropriations is

summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Status of Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020

(as of October 16, 2019)

Committee

Markup

Conference Report

Approval

Housea Senateb House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Senate

Passage

Conference

Report House Senate Public

Law

6/11/19

(30-21)

9/19/19

(31-0) H.Rept.

116-122

6/26/19

(224-196) S.Rept.

116-111

Source: Congressional Research Service examination of data from http://congress.gov/.

Note: This table shows the status, as of October 16, 2019, of judiciary appropriations for FY2020.

a. The House subcommittee held its markup on June 3, 2019.

b. The Senate subcommittee held its markup on September 17, 2019.



Submission of FY2020 Budget Request on March 11, 2019

The President’s proposed FY2020 budget request was submitted on March 11, 2019. It contains a

request for $8.29 billion in new budget authority for judicial branch activities, including $7.62

billion in discretionary funds and $669.8 million in mandatory funding for judges’ salaries and

judicial retirement accounts.1 By law, the judicial branch appropriations request is submitted to

the President and included in the budget submission without change.2

Appropriations for the judiciary comprise approximately 0.2% of total budget authority.3

Subcommittee Hearings on the Supreme Court’s FY2020 Budget

Request

The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee held hearings on

the FY2020 budget request of $106.8 million for the U.S. Supreme Court. This request is

included in the judiciary’s overall FY2020 budget request of $8.29 billion and represents

approximately 1.3% of that total.

Associate Justices Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan testified before the subcommittee regarding

the Supreme Court’s budgetary request. It was the first public hearing since 2015 regarding the

Supreme Court’s budget.4

According to Representative Mike Quigley (IL), chairman of the subcommittee, it is his “intent to

hold a hearing with the Supreme Court at least once a year to discuss the resources needed for the

highest court”5 and to hear the Justices’ “thoughts regarding America’s court system.”6 He also

expressed his view that “hearings such as this one is a great way for the public to get more

exposure to our third branch.”7

One issue raised during the subcommittee’s hearings was the use of cameras or video recordings

in Supreme Court proceedings. In his opening remarks, Chairman Quigley stated that “one

1 Office of Management and Budget, President’s Budget FY2020, Appendix, “Detailed Budget Estimates by Agency,”

Judicial Branch, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/appendix. The difference between discretionary and mandatory

appropriations is discussed further in the text.

2 Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §1105, “Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the legislative branch and the

judicial branch to be included in each budget ... shall be submitted to the President ... and included in the budget by the

President without change.” Furthermore, Division C of the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74)

added language to 31 U.S.C. §1107 relating to budget amendments, stating: “The President shall transmit promptly to

Congress without change, proposed deficiency and supplemental appropriations submitted to the President by the

legislative branch and the judicial branch.”

3 Calculations by CRS with data from Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 5.2—Budget

Authority By Agency: 1976–2024, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables.

4 According to one news source, “the ‘longstanding tradition’ of having justices appear in public to discuss funding for

the high court was broken in 2016 when Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer met with committee

members behind closed doors. Private meetings also occurred last year and the year before.” Kimberly Strawbridge

Robinson, Bloomberg Law, “Congress Reviving Public Hearing on Supreme Court Budget,” March 1, 2019.

5 Congressman Mike Quigley, “Chairman Quigley Statement at Hearing on Supreme Court’s FY2020 Budget

Request,” March 7, 2019, at https://appropriations.house.gov/news/statements/chairman-quigley-statement-at-hearing-

on-supreme-courts-fy-2020-budget-request.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.



government institution remains closed to the public eye—the U.S. Supreme Court”8 and “due to

antiquated practices and policies, we have no video record”9 of the Court’s most important

decisions. He further stated that “it is not unreasonable for the American people to have an

opportunity to hear firsthand the arguments and opinions that will shape their society for years to

come.”10

Justice Alito, in response, stated that while the Court wants as much access for the public as

possible, it does not “want access at the expense of damaging the decision-making process.”11

Similarly, Justice Kagan stated that cameras might adversely affect the way the Court

functioned.12 She emphasized that the kind of questioning a Justice uses in the courtroom might

be taken out of context in a video broadcast. For example, video of Court proceedings shown by a

news program might cause viewers to perceive that a Justice has a particular view or opinion on

an issue when, instead, the Justice is playing devil’s advocate and posing challenging questions to

one or both sides in a case.13

Other issues discussed or mentioned at the subcommittee hearing include cost-cutting measures

the Court has undertaken by revising existing contracts and cutting back on discretionary

spending in order to meet the cost-of-living adjustment for federal employees; the priority the

Court has placed on enhancing its physical and cybersecurity with previous funds appropriated by

Congress; the implementation of a new electronic case filing system; and a revamp of the Court’s

website to make it more user-friendly and highlight important information (e.g., the current term

calendar).14 Justice Alito also noted in his testimony that the Court was not requesting any new

programmatic increases in funds.15

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and

General Government Markup

On June 3, 2019, the House subcommittee held a markup of the FY2020 Financial Services and

General Government (FSGG) bill. The subcommittee, by voice vote, recommended a total of

$7.51 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.16

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Testimony of Justice Samuel A. Alito, “House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General

Government Holds Hearing on Supreme Court Budget,” CQ Transcriptions, March 7, 2019.

12 Testimony of Elena Kagan, “House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

Holds Hearing on Supreme Court Budget,” CQ Transcriptions, March 7, 2019.

13 Ibid.

14 Hearings on FY2020 Supreme Court Budget Request, “House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services

and General Government Holds Hearing on Supreme Court Budget,” CQ Transcriptions, March 7, 2019.

15 Testimony of Justice Samuel A. Alito, “House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General

Government Holds Hearing on Supreme Court Budget,” CQ Transcriptions, March 7, 2019.

16 Note that this amount does not include mandatory funds for salaries and benefits of certain types of judgeships. See

Table 3 and accompanying text for additional information.



House Appropriations Committee Markup

On June 11, 2019, the House Appropriations Committee held a markup of the FY2020 FSGG bill.

The committee recommended $7.51 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.17

The $7.51 billion in discretionary funding recommended for the judiciary represents

approximately 31% of the total $24.55 billion in discretionary funding included in the entire

FSGG appropriations bill (which also funds such entities as the Department of the Treasury, the

Executive Office of the President, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade

Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Small Business Administration).

The FY2020 FSGG bill was ordered reported by a roll call vote of 30-21 (H.R. 3351, H.Rept.

116-122). No amendments were offered during the committee markup that were related to the

judiciary.

The House report that accompanied the committee’s markup addressed the issue of video access

to Supreme Court proceedings, which had been discussed at the subcommittee’s hearings on the

Supreme Court’s FY2020 budget request.18 The committee stated that “providing the American

people with the opportunity to access Supreme Court arguments in real time via video and/or live

audio would greatly expand the Court’s accessibility to average Americans and provide historical

and educational value.”19 Consequently, the committee encouraged the Court “to take steps to

permit video and live audio coverage in all open sessions of the court unless the Court decides

that allowing such coverage in any case would violate the due process of one or more of the

parties before the Court.”20

Passage by the House

The FSGG appropriations bill was passed by a roll call vote of 224-196 in the House on June 26,

2019. No amendments were offered during House consideration that were related to the judiciary.

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and

General Government Markup

On September 17, 2019, the Senate subcommittee held a markup of the FY2020 Financial

Services and General Government (FSGG) bill and approved it by voice vote. The subcommittee

recommended a total of $7.42 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.21



18 See discussion in the text above. For a discussion, generally, of the use of video in federal courthouses, see CRS

Report R44514, Video Broadcasting from the Federal Courts: Issues for Congress, by Sarah J. Eckman.

19 House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 116-122, p. 39.

20 Ibid.





Senate Appropriations Committee Markup

On September 19, 2019, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a markup of the FY2020

FSGG bill. The committee recommended $7.42 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.22

The $7.42 billion in discretionary funding recommended for the judiciary represents

approximately 31% of the total discretionary funding included in the entire FSGG appropriations

bill (which also funds such entities as the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the

President, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the

Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Small Business Administration).

The FY2020 FSGG bill was ordered reported by a roll call vote of 31-0 (S. 2524, S.Rept. 116-

111). No amendments were offered during the committee markup that were related to the

judiciary.

The Senate report that accompanied the committee’s markup emphasized that it “is imperative

that the Federal judiciary devote its resources primarily to the retention of staff.”23 Additionally,

the report stated that “it is also important that the judiciary contain controllable costs such as

travel, construction, and other expenses.”24 The Senate report did not address the issue of video

access to Supreme Court proceedings, which had been discussed at the House subcommittee’s

hearing on the Supreme Court’s FY2020 budget request.

Enactment of Continuing Appropriations Resolution

Final enactment of the judiciary’s budget did not occur prior to the beginning of FY2020. At

present, the judiciary is funded through November 21, 2019, by the Continuing Appropriations

Act, 2020.25 The act passed the House on September 19, 2019, and the Senate on September 26,

2019.

FY2020 Judiciary Budget Request

Discretionary Appropriations

The judiciary’s FY2020 discretionary budget request totals $7.62 billion and represents a 5.1%

increase from the $7.25 billion in discretionary appropriations enacted by Congress for FY2019.

Table 2 lists, for each account included in the judiciary’s discretionary budget, (1) the amount

enacted by Congress for FY2019, (2) the judiciary’s FY2020 request, (3) the FY2020 amount that

passed the House, and (4) the FY2020 amount that was reported by the Senate Appropriations

Committee.



23 Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 116-111, p. 39.

24 Ibid.

25 P.L. 116-59 (September 27, 2019).



Table 2. Judiciary Discretionary Appropriations, FY2019-FY2020

(in millions of dollars)

FY2019

Enacted

FY2020

Requested

FY2020

House

Passed

FY2020

Senate

Committee

Reported

FY2020

Enacted

Supreme Court (total) $100.7 $104.1 $103.3 $104.1 TBD

Salaries and Expenses $84.7 $87.7 $87.7 $87.7 TBD

Building and Grounds $16.0 $16.4 $15.6 $16.4 TBD

U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit $32.0 $33.0 $33.0 $32.7 TBD

U.S. Court of

International Trade $18.9 $19.9 $19.4 $19.2 TBD

Courts of Appeals,

District Courts, and

Other Judicial Services

(total)

$6,960.1 $7,320.7 $7,210.7 $7,118.2 TBD

Salaries and Expenses $5,144.4 $5,384.0 $5,274.0 $5,182.7 TBD

Defender Services $1,150.4 $1,234.6 $1,234.6 $1,234.6 TBD

Court Security $607.1 $641.3 $641.1 $641.1 TBD

Fees of Jurors and

Commissioners $49.7 $51.9 $51.9 $50.7 TBD

Vaccine Injury Trust

Fund $8.5 $9.0 $9.1 $9.1 TBD

Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts $92.4 $96.9 $94.3 $94.3 TBD

Federal Judicial Center $29.8 $30.7 $30.7 $30.4 TBD

U.S. Sentencing

Commission $19.0 $19.3 $19.7 $19.7 TBD

Total (Judiciary) $7,252.9 $7,624.6 $7,511.3 $7,418.5 TBD

Sources: CRS examination of data from P.L. 116-6 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019); The Judiciary Fiscal

Year 2020 Congressional Budget Summary; H.R. 3351; H.Rept. 116-122; S. 2524; and S.Rept. 116-111.

Notes: All figures are rounded, and column sums may not equal the total due to rounding. TBD indicates that

the value, as of October 1, 2019, is to be determined.

Of the judiciary’s FY2020 total discretionary request for $7.62 billion, the greatest percentage is

for the Salaries and Expenses account (see Table 2)—representing 70.6% of the request. The

second-greatest percentage is for the Defender Services account, representing 16.2% of the total

discretionary request. The third-greatest percentage is for the Court Security account, representing

8.4% of the request.26 The remaining 4.8% of the FY2020 discretionary request is for the other

accounts listed in the table.27

26 Altogether, the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services item represents 96.0% of the

judiciary’s discretionary budget request for FY2020.

27 These accounts are listed here in descending order from the greatest percentage to smallest percentage of the

judiciary’s FY2020 discretionary budget request: Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (1.3%); Supreme Court—



Of the accounts listed in Table 2, the largest percentage increase between the amount enacted in

FY2019 and the amount requested by the judiciary for FY2020 is for the Defender Services

account—a 7.3% increase from the FY2019 amount enacted to the FY2020 request. The second-

greatest increase is for the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund account, a 6.3% increase. The third-greatest

increase is for the Court Security account, a 5.6% increase.28

The House-passed amount for each account included in the judiciary’s FY2020 budget was, in

each case, at least 95% of the judiciary’s FY2020 request for that account. For example, for the

Supreme Court—Building and Grounds account, the House provided $15.6 million—representing

95.1% of the judiciary’s FY2020 request of $16.4 million. Altogether, for four accounts, the

House passed less than the amount requested by the judiciary in its FY2020 budget submission.29

For six accounts, the House passed the same amount as was requested by the judiciary.30 And for

two accounts, the House passed more than the amount requested by the judiciary in its FY2020

budget submission.31

The Senate Appropriations Committee reported amount for each account included in the

judiciary’s FY2020 budget request was, in each case, at least 95% of the judiciary’s FY2020

request for that account. Altogether, for seven accounts, the committee reported less than the

amount requested by the judiciary.32 For three accounts, the committee reported the same amount

as was requested by the judiciary.33 And for two accounts, the committee reported more than the

amount requested by the judiciary in its FY2020 budget submission.34

The federal courts, judicial entities, and judicial programs funded by the various accounts listed in

Table 2 are discussed below in greater detail in the “What Is Funded by the Judiciary Budget?”

section of the report.

Salaries and Expenses (1.1%); Fees of Jurors and Commissioners (0.7%); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit (0.4%); Federal Judicial Center (0.4%); U.S. Court of International Trade (0.3%); U.S. Sentencing

Commission (0.3%); Supreme Court—Building and Grounds (0.2%); and the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (0.1%).

28 Of all the accounts listed in Table 2, the percentage increase between the amount enacted in FY2019 and the amount

requested for FY2020 ranged from a low of 1.6% (for the U.S. Sentencing Commission account) to a high of 7.3% for

the Defender Services account.

29 These four accounts (and the percentage of the judiciary’s FY2020 request that was passed by the House) are

Supreme Court—Building and Grounds (95.1%); U.S. Court of International Trade (97.1%); Administrative Office of

U.S. Courts (97.2%); and Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—Salaries and Expenses

(98.0%).

30 These six accounts are Supreme Court—Salaries and Expenses; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit;

Defender Services; Court Security; Fees of Jurors and Commissioners; and the Federal Judicial Center.

31 These two accounts (and the percentage of the judiciary’s FY2020 request that was passed by the House) are the

Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (100.6%) and U.S. Sentencing Commission (102.2%).

32 These seven accounts (and the percentage of the judiciary’s FY2020 request that was reported by the committee) are

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (99.1%); U.S. Court of International Trade (96.3%); Courts of Appeals,

District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—Salaries and Expenses (96.3%); Court Security (99.9%); Fees of Jurors

and Commissioners (97.9%); Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (97.2%); and the Federal Judicial Center (99.0%).

33 These three accounts are Supreme Court—Salaries and Expenses; Supreme Court—Building and Grounds; and

Defender Services.

34 These two accounts (and the percentage of the judiciary’s FY2020 request that was reported by the committee) are

the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (100.6%) and U.S. Sentencing Commission (102.1%).



Discretionary Appropriations in Recent Years

FY2019

FY2019 judiciary funding was provided in Division D, Title III, of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), which was enacted on February 15, 2019. The act

provided $7.25 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.

FY2018

FY2018 judiciary funding was provided in Division E, Title III, of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), which was enacted on March 23, 2018. The act

provided $7.11 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.

FY2017

FY2017 judiciary funding was provided in Division E, Title III, of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31), which was enacted on May 5, 2017. The act provided

$6.93 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary.

Use of Non-Appropriated Funds

The judiciary also uses non-appropriated funds to help offset its funding requirements. The

majority of these non-appropriated funds are from the collection of fees, primarily court filing

fees35 and fees associated with obtaining case and docket information online from various federal

courts.36 These monies are used to offset expenses that would otherwise be covered by the

discretionary Salaries and Expenses subaccount for the courts of appeals, district courts, and

other judicial services. The numbers presented in this report reflect the net resources for the

judiciary, and do not include these offsetting non-appropriated funds.

Mandatory Appropriations

Mandatory appropriations are used to meet the constitutional and statutory obligations associated

with the salaries and expenses of certain types of judgeships (and, consequently, are not

considered discretionary appropriations for the judiciary).

Such appropriations fall into two categories: (1) funds used to pay the salaries of Article III

judges (Supreme Court Justices, U.S. courts of appeals judges, etc.) and certain other types of

federal judges (e.g., bankruptcy judges); and (2) funds used for several judicial retirement

35 Each type of federal court, and other federal judicial services, publishes a list of fees that are charged for services

provided by the specific court. For a list of these fees, see Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Fees, at

https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees.

36 The Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER, is a service that allows users, for a fee, to obtain case and

docket information online from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator.

According to the federal judiciary, PACER is provided “in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to

court information via a centralized service.” See https://www.pacer.gov. Congressional authorization for the judiciary

to collect fees was granted in the Judiciary Appropriations Act of 1991, P.L. 101-515 (November 5, 1990).

Specifically, the act states that “the Judicial Conference shall prescribe reasonable fees … for collection by the courts

under those sections for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment…. The Director,

under the direction of the Judicial Conference of the United States, shall prescribe a schedule of reasonable fees for

electronic access to information which the Director is required to maintain and make available to the public.” Title IV,

§404(a); 104 Stat. 2132-2133.



accounts—specifically, the Judicial Officers’ Retirement Fund (28 U.S.C. §377(o)); the Judicial

Survivors’ Annuities Fund (28 U.S.C. §376(c)); and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judges’

Retirement Fund (28 U.S.C. §178(1)).

Table 3. Judiciary Mandatory Funding, FY2019-FY2020

(in millions of dollars)

Account FY2019

Enacted

FY2020

Requested

Supreme Court $2.7 $2.7

Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit

$3.0 $3.0

Court of International Trade $2.1 $2.1

Courts of Appeals, District Courts,

and Other Judicial Services

$415.1 $421.8

Judicial Retirement Funds $211.7 $240.1

Total (Judiciary) $634.6 $669.8

Source: CRS examination of data from P.L. 116-6 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019); The Judiciary Fiscal

Year 2020 Congressional Budget Summary; H.R. 3351; and H.Rept. 116-122.

Note: All figures are rounded, and column sums may not equal the total due to rounding.

The FY2020 mandatory appropriations request is for $669.8 million. Of the FY2020 request,

$429.6 million, or 64.1%, is for salaries and expenses associated with judgeships that the

judiciary is constitutionally (or statutorily) required to pay. The remaining $240.1 million (or

35.9% of the FY2020 mandatory appropriations request) was to provide for judicial retirement

funds.

There was a similar breakdown in the use of mandatory funds for FY2019. Of the $634.6 million

in mandatory appropriations enacted for FY2019, $422.9 million (or 66.6%) was to fund the

salaries and expenses associated with Article III judges and certain other types of federal judges.

The remaining $211.7 million (or 33.4% of FY2019 mandatory appropriations) was to provide for

judicial retirement funds.

Administrative Provisions

The FY2020 request also contains administrative provisions related to (1) the authorization of

salaries and expenses for the judiciary’s use of experts and consultant services; (2) allowing the

transfer between judiciary accounts of up to 5% of any appropriation, with some accounts

prohibited from increasing by more than 10% as a result of any such transfer of appropriations;

(3) a limitation of $11,000 for official reception and representation expenses incurred by the

Judicial Conference of the United States; (4) language enabling the judiciary to contract, under

certain circumstances, for repairs costing less than $100,000; (5) the continuation of a court

security pilot program; and (6) a one-year extension of eight temporary judgeships.

The bill passed by the House includes each of these six provisions. The bill, however, specifies

that no judiciary account, “except in certain circumstances,”37 may increase by more than 10% as

37 H.Rept. 116-122 (June 11, 2019), p. 43.



a result of the transfer of appropriations between judiciary accounts.38 Additionally, the bill

authorizes the extension of nine, rather than eight, temporary U.S. district court judgeships.

The Senate committee reported bill includes each of these six provisions. The bill, however,

limits (similar to the House bill) “to 10 percent the amount that may be transferred into any one

appropriation.”39 Additionally, the bill authorizes the extension of 10 temporary U.S. district court

judgeships.

What Is Funded by the Judiciary Budget?

U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter in the federal court system. Congress has authorized

nine judgeships for the Court. Among the nine Justices on the Court, one is also appointed as

Chief Justice of the United States. Justices are appointed by the President with the advice and

consent of the Senate.

U.S. Courts of Appeals

U.S. courts of appeals, or circuit courts, take appeals from U.S. district court decisions and are

also empowered to review the decisions of many administrative agencies. When hearing a

challenge to a district court decision from a court located within its geographic circuit, the task of

a court of appeals is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly by the district

court.40 Cases presented to U.S. circuit courts are generally considered by judges sitting in three-

member panels (circuit courts do not use juries).

The nation is divided into 12 geographic circuits, each with a U.S. court of appeals. There is also

one nationwide circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (discussed in the text

below).

Altogether, 167 judgeships for these 12 regional circuit courts are currently authorized by law.

The First Circuit (comprising Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto

Rico) has the fewest number of authorized judgeships, 6, while the Ninth Circuit (comprising

Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) has the

most, 29.41

U.S. circuit court judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Such appointments are considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the U.S.

Constitution),42 meaning judges remain in office until they die, assume senior status, resign,

retire, or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment.

38 The administrative provision included in the judiciary’s FY2020 budget request exempted two accounts (Defender

Services and Fees of Jurors and Commissioners) from the prohibition that an account could not be increased by more

than 10% by the transfer of appropriations among accounts. See Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, The Judiciary

Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Summary, p. 59, at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/

fy_2020_congressional_budget_summary_0.pdf.

39 S.Rept. 116-111 (September 19, 2019), p. 51.

40 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Court Role and Structure,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/

court-role-and-structure.

41 The Ninth Circuit also includes two U.S. territories, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

42 Throughout the text of the report, the term “effective for life” reflects the constitutional prerogative of a judge



U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

This court has nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of cases, including international trade,

government contracts, patents, trademarks, certain money claims against the United States

government, federal personnel, veterans’ benefits, and public safety officers’ benefits claims. The

court also reviews certain administrative agency decisions.

In FY2018, the court’s jurisdiction consisted of “administrative law cases (20%), intellectual

property cases (67%), and cases involving money damages against the United States government

(13%).”43

There are 12 judgeships authorized for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judges

serving on the Federal Circuit are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the

Senate. Such appointments are considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the U.S.

Constitution), meaning judges remain in office until they die, assume senior status, resign, retire,

or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment.

U.S. Court of International Trade

This court has nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions related to the customs and international

trade laws of the United States. Most of the cases heard by the court “involve antidumping and

countervailing duties, the classification and valuation of imported merchandise, actions to recover

unpaid customs duties and civil penalties, and various actions arising generally under the tariff

laws.”44 In 2018, the court reported a total of 242 case filings.45

There are nine judgeships authorized for the U.S. Court of International Trade. Judges serving on

the Court of International Trade are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the




U.S. District Courts (Including Territorial Courts)

District courts are the federal trial courts of general jurisdiction. These trial courts determine facts

and apply legal principles to resolve disputes.46 Trials are conducted by a district court judge or,

in some cases, a magistrate judge.

Each state has at least one district court (there is also one district court in each of the District of

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). States with more than one district court are

appointed to an Article III court to remain in office “during good Behavior.”

43 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Court Jurisdiction, at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/

court-jurisdiction. “The administrative law cases consist of international trade disputes, personnel claims, and veterans’

claims. Nearly all of the intellectual property cases involve patents originating from the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office and all U.S. District Courts. Suits for money damages against the United States government include government

contract cases, tax refund appeals, unlawful takings, and civilian and military pay cases.” Ibid.

44 U.S. Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, U.S. Court of International Trade—Judicial Business 2018, at

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-court-international-trade-judicial-business-2018.

45 Ibid.

46 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Court Role and Structure,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/

court-role-and-structure.



divided into judicial districts, with each district having one district court. For example, California

is divided into four judicial districts—each with its own district court. Altogether there are 94

district courts.47

At present, there are 677 district court judgeships authorized by law.48 Congress has authorized

between 1 and 28 judgeships for each district court, with district courts serving more populous

areas generally having more authorized judgeships. Among judicial districts with Article III

judgeships, the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee) has the fewest number (with 1

authorized judgeship), while the district courts located in the Southern District of New York

(Manhattan) and the Central District of California (Los Angeles) have the greatest number (each

with 28 authorized judgeships).

U.S. district court judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the




Territorial district court judges, serving the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of

the Northern Mariana Islands,49 are also appointed by the President with the advice and consent

of the Senate (under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution). These appointments, however, are not

effective for life but are for a fixed 10-year term in office.

U.S. Magistrate Judges

Certain types of trials and proceedings held by district courts can also be conducted by magistrate

judges.50 A district court judge may refer certain matters to a magistrate judge (e.g., a magistrate

judge may be assigned to hold a pretrial conference or an evidentiary hearing). A magistrate judge

may also conduct any type of civil trial as long as the parties consent (i.e., there is consent

jurisdiction), and they may also preside over all misdemeanor criminal trials as long as a

defendant has waived his right to a trial before a district judge.51 Magistrate judges cannot preside

over felony criminal cases (but can handle pretrial matters and preliminary proceedings in such

cases).52

47 These include three district courts located in several U.S. territories. Specifically, there is one district court each in

Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These courts were established by Congress under its

authority to govern the territories granted by Article IV of the Constitution. Judges confirmed to these courts serve 10-

year terms (unlike Article III U.S. district court judges, who are appointed for life unless they voluntarily leave office

or are removed from office by Congress). As with Article III courts, territorial courts hear cases arising out of federal

law, their decisions may be appealed to a U.S. circuit court of appeals, and their judicial nominations are referred to the

Senate Judiciary Committee.

48 This total includes 4 permanent territorial district court judgeships and 10 temporary U.S. district court judgeships.

See the U.S. Courts website at http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/AuthorizedJudgeships.aspx.

49 Judges appointed to U.S. district courts for the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are

appointed as Article III judges (and not as territorial district court judges).

50 The office of magistrate judge was created by the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968, in part, to provide relief to district

court judges in handling their caseloads. Federal Judicial Center, “Magistrate Judges,” at https://www.fjc.gov/history/

judges/magistrate-judgeships.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.



As of September 2018, the Judicial Conference53 has authorized 547 full-time magistrate judge

positions, 29 part-time positions, and 3 combination clerk/magistrate judge positions.54 Magistrate

judges are non-Article III judges appointed by district court judges. Full-time magistrate judges

serve a term of eight years and may be reappointed.

In 2018, magistrate judges disposed of a total of 1,219,163 matters—this included 348,421 civil

matters that had been referred to them by district court judges; 17,112 civil cases in which they

were the presiding judges for all proceedings by consent of the parties; 213,964 felony pretrial

matters (e.g., disposing of certain types of motions); and 426,865 felony preliminary proceedings

(e.g., search warrant applications).55 Other matters disposed of by magistrate judges included

Class A misdemeanor cases, petty offense cases, and cases brought by prisoners (involving, for

example, habeas corpus petitions and civil rights claims).

The number of magistrate judge positions is determined by the Judicial Conference of the United

States.56 A magistrate judge is appointed by majority vote of the active district court judges

serving on the court to which the magistrate judge would serve. A full-time magistrate judge

serves a term of eight years and may be reappointed.57

U.S. Bankruptcy Courts

Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters (i.e., a bankruptcy case cannot

be filed in state court). Bankruptcy courts are units of the federal district courts and exercise

jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters as granted by statute and referred to them by their respective

district courts.58

In 2018, debtors filed a total of 773,375 bankruptcy petitions—a 2% decline from 2017.59 Of all

petitions filed in 2018, nonbusiness (mostly consumer) petitions accounted for approximately

97%, and business petitions accounted for 3%.60

As of September 2018, there were a total of 350 bankruptcy judgeships authorized by Congress

(i.e., the number of bankruptcy judges is determined by Congress).61 Bankruptcy judges are non-

53 The Judicial Conference of the United States is the principal policymaking body for the federal courts system. The

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the presiding officer of the conference, which comprises the chief judges of the

13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of

International Trade.

54 Under 28 U.S.C. §631(c), with the approval of the Judicial Conference, a clerk or deputy clerk of a court may be

appointed as a part-time magistrate judge. Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Status of Magistrate Judge Positions

and Appointments—Judicial Business 2018,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/status-magistrate-judge-

positions-and-appointments-judicial-business-2018.

55 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “U.S. Magistrate Judges—Judicial Business 2018,” at

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-magistrate-judges-judicial-business-2018.

56 Through September 2018, the Judicial Conference had authorized 547 full-time magistrate judgeships, 29 part-time

judgeships, and 3 combination clerk/magistrate judge positions. Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Status of

Magistrate Judge Positions and Appointments—Judicial Business 2018,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/

status-magistrate-judge-positions-and-appointments-judicial-business-2018.

57 28 U.S.C. § 631(d).

58 Federal Judicial Center, “U.S. Bankruptcy Courts,” at https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/u.s.-bankruptcy-courts.

59 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “U.S. Bankruptcy Courts—Judicial Business 2018,” at

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-bankruptcy-courts-judicial-business-2018.

60 Ibid.

61 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Status of Bankruptcy Judgeships—Judicial Business 2018,” at

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/status-bankruptcy-judgeships-judicial-business-2018.



Article III judges appointed by the court of appeals for the circuit where the bankruptcy court is

located. Judges are appointed for a term of 14 years and may be reappointed.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims

This court had nationwide jurisdiction over various types of monetary claims against the federal

government, including “those involving tax refunds, federal taking of private property for public

use, pay and dismissal of federal civilian employees, pay and dismissal of military personnel,

land claims brought by Native Americans and/or their tribe(s), contract disputes, bid protests,

patents and copyright, congressional reference, and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation

Act.”62

Each January, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §791(c), the clerk of the Court of Federal Claims submits to

Congress a statement of all the judgments rendered by the court. The statement “notes the names

of the claimants, the amounts, the dates of entry and nature of the claims, and the disposition for

all judgments rendered the previous fiscal year.”63

In 2018, filings increased in the court by 16% to 2,224. The increase was due, in part, to a 223%

increase in cases involving taken property and a 30% increase in contract/injunction cases.64

The court consists of 16 non-Article III judges who are appointed for a term of 15 years by the

President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Probation and Pretrial Services

Federal probation and pretrial services officers investigate and supervise defendants and offenders

within the federal criminal justice system. A pretrial services officer “supervises defendants

awaiting trial who are released”65 and provides reports “upon which the court can determine the

conditions of release or detention while criminal cases are pending adjudication.”66

A probation officer “provides the court with reliable information concerning the offender, the

victim, and the offense committed, as well as an impartial application of the sentencing

guidelines.”67 Officers also “supervise offenders sentenced to probation, as well as offenders

coming out of federal prison who are required to serve a term of supervised release.”68

In 2018, pretrial services officers prepared 95,442 pretrial services reports for judges—an

increase of 12% from 2017.69 Of these reports, 97% were prebail reports.70 Additionally, officers

provided pretrial services supervision for approximately 23,600 defendants—an increase of 2%

62 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “U.S. Courts of Federal Claims—Judicial Business 2018,” at

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-court-federal-claims-judicial-business-2018.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

65 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Summary, “Overview

of the Judiciary,” p. 3.

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid.

69 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Pretrial Services—Judicial Business 2018,” at https://www.uscourts.gov/

statistics-reports/pretrial-services-judicial-business-2018.

70 Ibid.



from 2017.71 Such supervision included providing various support services (e.g., substance abuse

treatment and location monitoring) and informing the courts and U.S. attorneys of any apparent

violations of release conditions.72

In 2018, a total of 129,706 individuals were under postconviction supervision by probation

officers—a decrease of 4% from 2017.73 Of those under postconviction supervision, 47% had

been convicted of drug offenses; 18% had been convicted of property offenses; and 14% had been

convicted of firearms offenses.74 Federal probation officers also prepared 67,039 presentence

investigative reports—an increase of 5% from 2017.75

Defender Services

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to representation by counsel

in serious criminal proceedings. The federal judiciary has, historically, exercised “responsibility

for appointing counsel in federal criminal proceedings for those unable to bear the cost of

representation.”76

This account in the judiciary budget funds the operations of federal defender organizations

responsible for providing representation to defendants financially unable to retain counsel in

federal criminal proceedings. At present, there are 81 authorized federal defender organizations

that employ more than 3,700 lawyers, investigators, paralegals, and support personnel.77

This account also provides funds to reimburse the services of private appointed counsel (i.e.,

panel attorneys) in federal criminal proceedings. The rates paid to panel attorneys cover both

attorney compensation and office overhead.78 There are case maximum amounts that limit the

compensation paid to a panel attorney based on the type of case to which he or she is appointed.79

Consequently, the costs associated with this account are driven, in part, by the number and type of

prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorneys offices.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid.

73 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Post-Conviction Supervision—Judicial Business 2018,” at

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/post-conviction-supervision-judicial-business-2018.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid.

76 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Defender Services, at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/defender-

services.

77 Ibid. There are two types of federal defender organizations. The first type, federal public defender organizations, are

federal entities and their staffs are federal employees. The chief federal public defender is appointed to a four-year term

by the court of appeals of the circuit where the federal public defender organization is located. The second type,

community defender organizations, are nonprofit defense counsel organizations incorporated under state laws. These

nonprofit organizations operate under the supervision of a board of directors and can, when included in a judicial

district’s plan to provide legal representation to indigent defendants, receive initial and sustaining grants from the

federal judiciary to fund their operations. Ibid.

78 At present, panel attorneys are paid an hourly rate of $148 on noncapital cases, and, in capital cases, a maximum

hourly rate of $190. Ibid.

79 For example, $11,500 is the maximum attorney compensation for felony cases; $3,300 is the maximum for

misdemeanors; and $8,200 is the maximum for appeals. These maximums may be exceeded if higher amounts are

approved by the district judge (or circuit judge if the case is at the appellate level) and the chief judge of the circuit also

approves. Ibid.



Court Security

This account provides for protective guard services and security systems and equipment for

United States courthouses and other facilities housing federal court operations.

The majority of funding for court security is transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS),

which is responsible for ensuring “the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings” and for

providing “protection for federal judges, other court officials, witnesses, jurors, the visiting public

and prisoners.”80

At present, the Marshals protect 711 judicial facilities and approximately 2,200 federal judges.81

The Marshals also have protective responsibility for approximately 26,000 federal prosecutors

and court officials.82 In FY2018, the Marshals assessed or handled 4,542 threats and inappropriate

communications against protected persons.83

As part of its mission to protect the federal judicial process, the U.S. Marshals Service

administers the Judicial Facility Security Program (funded by the Court Security account). The

program “oversees the daily operation and management of security services performed by

approximately 5,300 court security officers”84 and “installs and maintains security systems for the

protection of federal courthouses and other judicial facilities.”85

Fees of Jurors and Commissioners

This account in the judiciary’s budget funds the fees and allowances provided to petit and grand

jurors and compensation for jury and land commissioners.86 Petit jurors serve on a trial jury, while

grand jurors serve on a grand jury.87 Petit jurors are paid $50 per day88 but can, after serving 10

days on a jury, receive up to $60 per day.89 Grand jurors are also paid $50 per day but can, after

serving 45 days on a grand jury, receive up to $60 per day.90

80 U.S. Marshals Service, Fact Sheet – Judicial Security 2019, at https://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid.

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid.

86 Land commissioners are appointed in certain types of cases to “determine the issue of just compensation arising from

the deprivation of private property for public use,” including cases where a district court has ordered that

“compensation for condemned property be determined by a commission of three persons appointed by the court.” Land

commissioners are paid based on the daily equivalent of the highest rate payable under 5 U.S.C. §5332. U.S.

Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Courts Of Appeals, District Courts, And Other Judicial Services—Fees of Jurors

and Commissioners—Summary Statement Of Account Requirements, p. 6.9, at https://www.uscourts.gov/file/25694/

download.

87 A trial jury decides “whether the defendant committed the crime as charged in a criminal case, or whether the

defendant injured the plaintiff in a civil case.” A grand jury “is presented with evidence from the U.S. attorney, the

prosecutor in federal criminal cases. The grand jury determines whether there is ‘probable cause’ to believe the

individual has committed a crime and should be put on trial. If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, an

indictment will be issued against the defendant.” Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Types of Juries, at

https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/types-juries.

88 In FY2018, Congress approved the judiciary’s request to increase the daily petit juror attendance fee from $40 to

$50, as well as increase the daily grand juror attendance fee from $40 to $50.

89 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Juror Pay, at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/juror-pay.

90 Ibid.



Petit and grand jurors are also reimbursed for reasonable transportation expenses and parking

fees.91 Jurors can receive a subsistence allowance that covers their meals and lodging if they are

sequestered during their service.92

A jury commissioner is appointed in some cases to work with the clerk of court to manage the

random selection of petit and grand jurors.93 The compensation paid to a jury commissioner is

$50 per day (plus the reimbursement of reasonable expenses related to his or her service).94

According to the U.S. Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “costs associated with this account

can be unpredictable and are driven by the number of jury trials, the length of those trials, and

statutory rates for reimbursement paid to jurors.”95

Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 198696 created a program to provide compensation

to people found to be injured by certain vaccines.97 The program “is designed to encourage

vaccination by providing a streamlined system for compensation in rare instances where an injury

results from vaccination”98 and provides “an alternative to traditional products liability and

medical malpractice litigation for persons injured by their receipt or one or more of the standard

childhood vaccines.”99

The program, according to the Department of Justice, “has succeeded in providing a less

adversarial, less expensive, and less time-consuming system of recovery than the traditional tort

system that governs medical malpractice, personal injury, and product liability cases.”100

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding for the compensation program,

covering claims related to vaccine-related injuries or deaths for covered vaccines administered on

or after October 1, 1988. An individual who believes he or she has been injured by a covered

vaccine can seek compensation from the fund by filing a claim against the Secretary of the

Department of Health and Human Services in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.101 Since the

program began in 1988, over 6,000 individuals have received more than $3.9 billion (combined)

for such claims.102

91 Ibid.

92 Ibid.

93 28 U.S.C. §1863.

94 28 U.S.C. §1863 (b)(1).

95 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Summary, p. 43, at

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fy_2020_congressional_budget_summary_0.pdf.

96 42 U.S.C. §§300aa-1 to 300aa-34.

97 The program “was established after lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers threatened to

cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health

Resources and Service Administration, About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, at

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html.

98 U.S. Department of Justice, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, at https://www.justice.gov/civil/vicp.

99 Ibid.

100 Ibid.

101 Ibid.

102 Ibid. This also includes compensation for claims that were settled. The Health Resources and Services

Administration notes that “even in cases in which” a vaccine is not found to have caused an injury, a petitioner “may

receive compensation through a settlement.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and



The Department of the Treasury manages the fund’s investments and produces a monthly Vaccine

Injury Compensation Report.103

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AO) “is the agency within the judicial branch that

provides a broad range of legislative, legal, financial, technology, management, administrative,

and program support services to federal courts.”104 A main responsibility of AO is to provide staff

support and counsel for the Judicial Conference, the national policymaking body for the federal

courts, and the Conference’s committees.

With input from the Judicial Conference, AO also develops the annual judiciary budget for

submission by the President and approval by Congress.

Federal Judicial Center

As the federal judiciary’s research and education entity, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC)

“develops orientation and continuing education programs for judges and other court personnel. It

also studies judiciary operations and recommends to the Judicial Conference how to improve the

management and administration of the federal courts.”105

The operations of the FJC are “overseen by a board of directors whose members are the Chief

Justice, the director of the Administrative Office, and seven judges chosen by the Judicial

Conference.”106

United States Sentencing Commission

The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency that is located within the

federal judiciary. It was created by Congress in 1984 “to reduce sentencing disparities and

promote transparency and proportionality in sentencing.”107 As such, the commission establishes

and amends sentencing guidelines for the federal criminal justice system, as well as “monitors

sentencing recommendations by probation officers and operates an information center on

sentencing practices.”108

Service Administration, About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, at https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-

compensation/about/index.html.

103 These reports are available at https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/tfmp/vaccomp/vaccomp.htm.

104 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Judicial Administration, at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/

judicial-administration.

105 Ibid.

106 Ibid.

107 United States Sentencing Commission, About the Commission, at https://www.ussc.gov.

108 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Judicial Administration, at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/

judicial-administration. For FY2018, 87.8% of federal offenders received a sentence of imprisonment (and no other

type of sentence); 6.4% received probation (and no other type of sentence); 3.0% received a sentence of imprisonment

and alternatives; 2.0% received probation and alternatives; and 0.8% received a fine (and no other type of sentence).

United States Sentencing Commission, U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2018 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing

Statistics, 2018 Sentencing Information, Sentence Type for Federal Offenders, Figure 6, at https://www.ussc.gov/

research/sourcebook-2018.



The commission consists of seven voting members appointed by the President and confirmed by

the Senate, with members serving staggered six-year terms.109 No more than four members of the

commission can be members of the same political party, and at least three members must be

federal judges.110 In order for a sentencing guideline to be amended, the amendment must receive

the affirmative votes of four members of the commission.111

The commission has a staff of approximately 100 employees.112 The commission is also advised

by “four standing advisory groups representing the views of practitioners, probation officers,

victims, and tribal lands.”113 The purpose, in part, of the advisory group representing the views of

tribal lands is to provide the commission “its views on federal sentencing issues related to

American Indian defendants and victims and to offenses committed in Indian Country.”114

Selected Courts Not Funded by the Judiciary Budget Three specialized courts within the federal court system are not funded under the judiciary

budget: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the Department of Defense

appropriations bill), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (funded in the Military

Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill), and the U.S. Tax Court

(funded under Independent Agencies, Title V of the FSGG bill). Additionally, federal courthouse

construction is funded within the General Services Administration account under Independent

Agencies, Title V of the FSGG bill.

Ongoing Policy Issues for FY2020

Number of U.S. District and Circuit Court Judgeships

Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary.

Consequently, the creation of any new permanent or temporary U.S. circuit and district court

judgeships must be authorized by Congress.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts, makes

biennial recommendations to Congress that identify any circuit and district courts that, according

to the Conference, require new permanent judgeships to appropriately administer civil and

criminal justice in the federal court system. In evaluating whether a court might need additional

judgeships, the Judicial Conference examines whether certain caseload levels have been met, as

well as court-specific information that might uniquely affect a particular court.

The Judicial Conference’s most recent recommendation, released in March 2019, calls for the

creation of five permanent judgeships for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

(composed of California, eight other western states, and two U.S. territories). The Conference

109 United States Sentencing Commission, About—Organization, at https://www.ussc.gov/about/who-we-are/

organization.

110 Ibid. Additionally, the Attorney General, or the Attorney General’s designee, and the Chair of the U.S. Parole

Commission are each ex officio, nonvoting members of the commission.

111 Ibid.

112 Ibid.

113 United States Sentencing Commission, About, at https://www.ussc.gov/about-page.

114 United States Sentencing Commission, Advisory Groups—Tribal Issues Advisory Group, at https://www.ussc.gov/

about/who-we-are/advisory-groups.



also recommends creating 65 permanent U.S. district court judgeships, as well as converting 8

temporary district court judgeships to permanent status.115

According to the Judicial Conference, since the enactment of the most recent omnibus judgeship

bill in 1990 (P.L. 101-650), the number of U.S. circuit court judgeships has remained at 179 while

appellate court case filings increased by 15% through the end of FY2018. During this same time

period, Congress enacted legislation that increased the number of permanent and temporary

district judgeships by 4% (from 645 to 673) while district court case filings increased by 39%.116

In terms of specific types of cases, civil cases increased by 34% during the same period, and

cases involving criminal felony defendants increased by 60%.117

The House Appropriations Committee, in its report that accompanied the committee’s recent

passage of the FSGG funding bill, noted that the Judicial Conference recently recommended the

creation of a “significant number of new Article III judgeships” for the nation’s circuit and

district courts.118 The committee also expressed its concern that, “absent executive and

congressional action to fill existing judicial vacancies and the passage of comprehensive

bipartisan legislation to create new judgeships, the ability of the federal courts to administer

justice in a swift, fair, and effective manner could be compromised.”119

Judicial Security

There is ongoing congressional interest in the safe conduct of court proceedings and the security

of federal judges. Congress has, in the past, appropriated funds specifically to enhance the

personal security of judges. For example, an FY2005 supplemental appropriations act included a

provision providing funds for home intrusion detection systems for federal judges.120

Additionally, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 included various measures to enhance

security for judges and court personnel, as well as courtroom safety for the public.121 The act, for

example, amended 18 U.S.C. §930(e)(1) to prohibit the possession of dangerous weapons (other

than firearms, which were already prohibited) in federal court facilities.

The judiciary works closely with the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to ensure that adequate

protective policies, procedures, and practices are in place for the federal courts. As discussed in

the text above, the Marshals are largely responsible for protecting federal courthouses, judges,

and other judicial employees. In FY2018, after the USMS assessed the level of danger in explicit

threats and inappropriate communications directed at judges and other court officers, there were

115 For additional information about the Judicial Conference’s recent recommendation, see CRS Report R45899, Recent

Recommendations by the Judicial Conference for New U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships: Overview and

Analysis, by Barry J. McMillion.

116 Judicial Conference of the United States, letter to the Honorable Lindsey Graham, Chairman, Senate Committee on

the Judiciary, May 14, 2019, Appendix 2, p. 1.

117 Ibid.


119 Ibid.

120 P.L. 109-13 (May 11, 2005). In FY2018, the Judicial Security Division (JSD) of the U.S. Marshals Service

maintained more than 1,600 residential security systems in judges’ personal residences. U.S. Marshal Service, “Judicial

Security,” at https://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial.

121 P.L. 110-177 (January 7, 2008).



531 predicated protective investigations opened “based on the presence of or potential for

criminal activity.”122

The House Appropriations Committee, in the report accompanying its markup of the FY2020

judiciary budget, states that the committee considers it a priority to improve the physical security

of federal judicial facilities and “to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.”123

Cost Containment by the Judiciary

The judiciary continues the cost containment initiatives that it began in 2004. Specific areas of

focus for containing costs include office space rental, personnel expenses, information

technology, and operating costs.124

Of particular focus by the judiciary is an effort to cut costs associated with office space and rental

payments. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AO) announced in December 2018 that the

federal judiciary “has succeeded dramatically in its five-year quest to reduce building space and

rent costs, exceeding its original reduction goals by nearly 30 percent.”125 Additionally, AO noted

that “rent has been cut more than $36 million a year,”126 with additional savings anticipated in the

future.

In its FY2020 budget summary, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AO) emphasized that,

as of September 30, 2018, approximately 1.1. million usable square feet had been removed from

the judiciary’s rent bill.127

Examples of the judiciary’s space reduction campaign include the following:

The bankruptcy court for the District of New Hampshire “was relocated from

leased space in Manchester into the District Court in Concord, NH. Savings:

20,000 square feet.”128

In New York, the bankruptcy court in Buffalo “relocated into the district

courthouse. In Manhattan, the Bankruptcy Court reduced space by digitizing

paper records. Combined savings: 39,000 square feet.”129

The bankruptcy court in San Francisco “saved over 25,000 square feet and $1.5

million in annual rent by moving into the Phillip Burton Federal Building and

U.S. Courthouse.”130

Courthouse “library reductions in Camden, NJ; Wilmington, DE; Harrisburg, PA;

Philadelphia; and U.S. Virgin Islands saved over 18,000 square feet.”

122 U.S. Marshals Service, “Judicial Security,” at https://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial.


124 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Summary, pp. iii-iv.

125 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Judiciary Succeeds in Campaign to Cut Space and Rents,” at

https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/12/11/judiciary-succeeds-campaign-cut-space-and-rents.

126 Ibid.


128 Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, “Judiciary Succeeds in Campaign to Cut Space and Rents,” at

https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/12/11/judiciary-succeeds-campaign-cut-space-and-rents.

129 Ibid.

130 Ibid.



The Sixth Circuit’s library headquarters in Cincinnati “relocated to space

formerly used for Clerk’s Office file storage. Total savings: 15,000 square

feet.”131

Courthouses for which there was no permanently assigned judge (i.e., non-

resident courthouses) “were closed in Bryson City, NC; Wilkesboro, NC;

Beaufort, SC; and Parkersburg, WV. Total savings: over 35,000 square feet.”132

“In Miami, 33,000 square feet and $900,000 in annual rent were saved by

relocating the Bankruptcy Court into the C. Clyde Atkins U.S. Courthouse. Two

magistrate judges were relocated, and a circuit library and jury assembly area

were vacated.”133

The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts also noted that, in addition to space reduction, the

judiciary has “undertaken significant efforts to develop alternative organizational models that

may result in cost savings, including expanding shared administrative services within and among”

district courts.134

The House Appropriations Committee noted in its report that it recognizes the judiciary’s “cost

containment efforts over the past 12 years and is pleased with the [its] savings and cost

avoidance.”135 The committee notes, specifically, that the reduction of usable square feet from the

judiciary’s rent bill “equates to an annual cost avoidance of nearly $36,000,000 and $105,000,000

over the past five years.”136

Author Information

Barry J. McMillion

Analyst in American National Government

Acknowledgments

Raymond Williams, former Research Assistant for the Congress and Judiciary Section, assisted with data

presented in this report.

131 Ibid.

132 Ibid.

133 Ibid.



136 Ibid.


Congressional Research Service R45965 · VERSION 1 · NEW 23

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020 · 2019-10-16 · Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020 Congressional...

Documents

Transcript of Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020 · 2019-10-16 · Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020 Congressional...